Lemongrass Plant as Potential Sources of Reinforcement for Biocomposites: A Preliminary Experimental Comparison Between Leaf and Culm Fibers

Nowadays, the world requires more sustainable and eco-friendly materials to replace or limit the usage of synthetic materials. Moreover, several researchers focused their attention on the use of agricultural sources as reinforcement for biocomposites since they are abundant, cost-effective and envir...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of polymers and the environment Vol. 30; no. 11; pp. 4726 - 4737
Main Authors Fiore, Vincenzo, Badagliacco, Dionisio, Sanfilippo, Carmelo, Pirrone, Roberto, Siengchin, Suchart, Rangappa, Sanjay Mavinkere, Botta, Luigi
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Springer US 01.11.2022
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Nowadays, the world requires more sustainable and eco-friendly materials to replace or limit the usage of synthetic materials. Moreover, several researchers focused their attention on the use of agricultural sources as reinforcement for biocomposites since they are abundant, cost-effective and environmentally favorable sources. In such a context, purpose of the present paper is the evaluation of lemongrass plant ( Cymbopogon flexuosus ) as possible source of natural reinforcement for biocomposites. To this aim, natural fibers were obtained from the leaf and the stem of lemongrass and their main properties were compared for the first time. To this scope, mechanical and thermal characterizations, chemical investigation, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, X-Ray diffraction and scanning electron microscope analysis were carried out. The experimental campaign showed that, despite having similar chemical composition (i.e., cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin contents equal to 44–45%, 28–29% and 17%, respectively), leaf fibers possess higher mechanical properties (i.e., + 55% and + 76% in the tensile strength and modulus, respectively) than stem ones. This result can be ascribed to different factors such as larger amount of absorbed water (i.e., + 4%) and ash content (+ 2%) shown by stem fibers in addition to a more compact structure evidenced by leaf fibers which also present higher density (i.e., 1.139 g/cm 3 versus 1.019 g/cm 3 ).
ISSN:1566-2543
1572-8919
DOI:10.1007/s10924-022-02545-8